Books by Usha Alexander

  • A lone woman travels fearlessly into the jungle to confront the enemy. She holds the fate of an entire world in her hands.

  • When Craig Olsen returns to Idaho to say goodbye to his dying uncle, who raised him, he comes face to face with matters he can no longer evade.

  • "A suspenseful narrative weaves the stories and secrets of two generations into one seamless drama ... a worthy literary journey." —Kirkus Discoveries

Namit Arora's Photography

Selected Videos


  • StatCounter

« The Giant Tortoises of Galapagos | Main | The Bold and the Beautiful »

December 02, 2006


Well said, Namit. I would echo most of what you have said.

Hence my question. Why were you then arguing with me on the topic of our innate "Moral Compass" where I was making pretty much the same case? :-)

Thanks. As I noted here, I myself saw it more as an exchange of views. ;-)

Spirituality is what we left behind since birth to pursue what is "right," "good," and "fulfilling," as taught by our wiser predecessors, to gain an upper hand in the material world. One day it dawns that we so under-explore this origin that regret consumes us to our dying days, for missing out on "spirituality," the very thing we learn to rid, only to search for it on a bookshelf or on a strenuous trip to Tibet.

Thanks for the brilliant summation of what it means to be spiritual yet very rational at the same time.

I have been exploring Pantheism lately on my own and while I also feel wonder, appreciation of Nature as a whole, and that all life is interconnected and sacred, I do not know how to reconcile the Violent and cruel aspects of nature with 'reverence' so I have hesitated to say-I am a Pantheist.

For a very long time I called myself a spiritual Atheist as belief in God for me is foolish, illogical and superstitious until too many Atheists suggested I was using an incorrect label so on this search I went to understand my inner zoo.

I think I shall stick around and read on, I find your words inspirational, Thanks again!

I regard myself as a spiritual man. I have walked the path. By they way, the path is different for each person depending on the person's conditioning. There is no cure for all. I see spirituality as a process in which one through self-knowledge comes to terms with one's conditioning and thereby removes our negative conditioning and sets one's soul free, beyond beliefs, fears and boundaries, in unity with all that exists. It is a long process in which one gets dished up one conditioning after the next until all has been fully understood. Yes, this includes one's sexuality. When one has cleaned the mirror inside of all this cobwebs one goes through a transcendence after which one sees everything in a new light.

So spirituality is not a belief or a religious setimentality. It is a practical form of hard work and anybody who is committed to look within will be able to be come enlightened. It is no more then a maturing of men. It is part of our natural development.

As quoted "Those who don't have frequent raging debates in their heads cannot be spiritual. Wonder is a prerequisite, as are personal responsibility and attention to cause and effect."...

So you have to be a lunatic and have higher moral understanding of how things work in a "side effects" mentality to be spiritual? You're just running your sentences together full of big worded nonsense and it's untrue... In it's simplest form to be spiritual is to worship and the extension of exercising your faith or belief. It's the act of, the conduit or extension of what you believe. You can be totally misguided in what you believe whether it's atheist, satanist, buddist, or even zen-zooist but still be spiritual. It doesn't mean you've made the right choice or that you're even seeing things clearer or right but that you're acting or exercising within your guided or misguidedness.

We could talk about creation, Adam and Eve, God, and how the amazing planet we live on was created but that's not really the topic at hand here is it? Besides it's easier for some to curse and rant about self imposed theory and will rather than looking for factual truths within creation, worship, or spirituality. The fact is yes it was created (it didn't just explode into all the beauty and perfect planet we have and rotate on the perfect axis) and yes it's true we didn't come from monkeys (that's why they still exist and will never look like humans). We could go real deep in to soul searching rather than praying to the forest but it may be a little ugly when you uncover your own truths, and that's whats called "spiritual or ideological development". This is a great page that drew me in. I do love the nature (trees, birds etc...) that our creator God who sent his son Jesus Christ for mine and your salvation here to earth made...It's beatiful, it's spirtiual, and in the end it's truth.

It’s nice to find similar beliefs, and Namit’s summery is indeed inspirational. In regards to Brian's comment I’ve read comment similar many times before, and they all end with the unveiling of your true message… god. Which apparently was the basis of your rant, by the way serves no rationale. God created Adam and Eve 6k years ago, yet using modern science's Radiometric Dating the earth is determined to be as old as 4.6 billion years, although in the scientific field this is considered reliable, the Christian community claims it is flawed and the debate stops there. In my opinion being spiritual is internal peace with your eyes wide open. With that said I do believe in a higher power, but not conceived in a religion.

Good luck to all in your venture of your own spirituality.

I found the most comprehensive and satisfying - to me - encapsulation of spirituality, one that gives reason its place and does not shun dualities, to be from this yogi called Sari Aurobindo. I may not be ready for the spiritual quest, but he's the best light I've found via a long search.

At the least, read him before you do anything else.

"As an aside: Immensely progressive as your World Pantheistic Movement belief statement is, I must admit that I personally have trouble according reverence to nature. I feel immense wonder, but no reverence. Nature to me is brutal and violent. All available evidence suggests that nothing in nature cares about me – I am a pawn in its pointless (as far as we can tell) bloody game. So why should I waste my reverence on it?"

To say "Nature is brutal and violent" is denying the human zoo. We not only have a mental zoo, but a physical one which encompasses both our outer skin and our inner gut. We cannot say "nature is brutal and violent" without being disingenuous. WE ARE NATURE. We are not separate from it in any way. Spirituality is, to me, simply a way of looking at how I fit into the universe. I cannot separate my mind from my soil, nor my food from my automobile's fuel tank. To dismiss a reverence for Nature is to dismiss reverence for yourself. This mindset is exploited daily by marketers and priests worldwide, who profit from our blindness to the connections we all have.

One comment said, "In it's simplest form to be spiritual is to worship and the extension of exercising your faith or belief."

This works for some people, but I deduced on 9/11 that True Evil is easily defined: it is any action taken based upon Blind Faith. Pretty simple. We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions (May our children forgive our waste), and taking action without questioning Gods, Governments, or Gurus almost always results in some kind of betrayal of our species' potential future.

Thank you for the informative references on your site.

Thanks for your thoughtful note. John Muir once said, “I only went out for a walk and finally concluded to stay out till sundown, for going out, I found, was really going in.” I completely agree that "we are nature", not apart from it. But I can't muster any reverence even for this inclusive notion of nature. Curiosity, wonder, bewilderment, yes, but no reverence. Isn't reverence a big obstacle to self-knowledge?

I take the first meaning: "deference". In other words, we should defer to the whole of nature that is us and is not us in order to determine what we will need in the future. We cannot say "killing is wrong", while we need to eat plants and animals, nor should we. I think Derrick Jensen says it well when he said, "If we kill something, we have to take on the responsibility of that thing." If we kill a tree, we need to make sure that oxygen and food production and microecosystems are replaced with something else. If we kill wolves, we have to take on responsibility for controlling the herds of deer, etc. Many times, it is better not to do such things, as it is impractical or too complex to even begin to replace those pieces of the natural chaos. By the same token, we must have respect for our own desires to live and create, with all things in moderation. The reverence of nature is what I refer to as Net Creativity: our efforts should primarily be to create more future usefulness than we consume in resources. We have to stop thinking competitively and think cooperatively. Competition with nature (ourselves and our future) is insanity.

I stumbled across your site and have dropped a white pebble so that I can find it again when I have some free time to browse thru. I read enough to recognize another soul on a journey, someone not afraid to share thoughts and views from their personal path.

The world is changing, one soul at a time. We accelerate the pace when we drop our fear of reaching out to other souls, to share without judgement, to reach out a hand to those who need it.

I'll be back...
Tom Carroll
Author of "The Confession of Mason Young"

I once had a Priest ask me what I thought spirituality was. After thinking about it for a while I realized I had no idea. He told me that maybe it was the search for truth. I then said,"does that mean an atheist scientist would then be spiritual." He said,"Yes." That threw me for a loop. I always thought spirituality was the practice of religion. Many years has past since that conversation. Since then I have studied and practiced many faiths and sciences, one thing remains constant. I still do not know what spirituality is, I am still searching. The more I seem to think I know, the less I know. We are a mystery. Embrace the mystery, it is a glorious thing.

Did the universe self-invent itself? Is it nature? Since we have egos, psyches, minds, souls & personalities (either spiritual or non-spiritual), then are not we (all inclusive egos, etc.) in fact, a part of that self created universe?

Or, did not a creation device or force, ie., a supreme dna creator/ enablor bring about all the matter, dark energy, dark matter, black holes, periodic table, esp events, natural laws & quantum effects, up to & including faster than speed of light travel/phenomena of photons, and other criteria of the self aware universe?

If DNA/RNA is the messenge code of beings, then then were we intended to be readers of the code?

Creation MYTHS? Where there is smoke, there is a source of said smoke ! Pray for all our terroist enemies. PLEASE.

Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
- Chapter: The origin and fate of the universe, page 136.
Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project.
God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration the fact that there is also a God. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not believe that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. (Book: A History of Western Philosophy, Ch: Plato’s Utopia). Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.
So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
H. S. Pal

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Primary Editors

New Book by Namit Arora

  • The Lottery of Birth reveals Namit Arora to be one of our finest critics. In a raucous public sphere marked by blame and recrimination, these essays announce a bracing sensibility, as compassionate as it is curious, intelligent and nuanced.” —Pankaj Mishra

Shunya Website

Namit wins 3QD Arts & Literature Prize 2011

Namit Arora's India Photo Archive